No More Domestic Violence

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

A judge has ruled that Ohio's new constitutional ban on same-sex marriage prohibits unmarried people from being able to file domestic violence charges, a decision that has prompted an immediate appeal by prosecutors.

Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a ruling on how Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage, among the nation's broadest, would affect the state's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which previously wasn't limited to married people.

Wednesday's ruling by Cuyahoga County common pleas judge Stuart Friedman changed a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.

Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local government from enforcing a law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Prior to the amendment's approval, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The new amendment banning same-sex marriage no longer allows that.

Brando to Reprise His Role as Jor-El, Christopher Reeve to Remain Dead

You heard it here first-ish: Marlon Brando will be in the new Superman movie. Don't ask me how or why, just read this.

Maybe now they can make an "Oh God Four" starring John Denver and George Burns. We can only dream.

O.C., Oopsy

Ever see magumbos on a skeleton? You have now (nsfw). Thanks Mischa!

Bush in Stages

Flash imagery of our president courtesy of the Economist:

“INTELLECTUAL” is hardly the first word that springs to mind when you contemplate George Bush. Mr Bush glided through the best education that money can buy without acquiring much in the way of “book learning”. At school, he formed a stick-ball team called the Nads (providing him and his pals with a chance to shout “Go Nads”); at Yale, he was famous for doing the alligator, a dance that involved falling on the floor and rolling around; at Harvard Business School, he wore cowboy boots and chewed tobacco, a strutting provocation to the lefty penseurs who dominated Harvard Yard.

Because I can. . .

Oh how the mighty have fallen. This serves all you people right for worshipping a talentless hack just because she looks good in a red-leather jumpsuit. Now look at your precious queen. Look at her!



UPDATE: Link is broken, go here. And upon further thought, it's not that she looks bad necessarily, just that she looks so plain. What's next, we're gonna find out that our pop singers are only average singers?

A Few of My Favorite Things

And they're all rolled into one. First off, we've got the GAP, unfortunately my coiture of choice. Then we've got an aging-yet-still-hot Sarah Jessica Parker in a catfight with an aging-yet-still-not-legal Joss Stone. Top that off with the allure of big advertising bucks and we've got what I like to call a dream come true.

It seems that although SJP is viewed as one of the fashion mavens of Hollywood these days, that is still not enough to convince GAP to keep her aboard as their spokesmodel. Instead, they're going for a younger, slightly thicker though perhaps more talented (so I hear) star (so I don't hear, but maybe someday soon) whom they hope will attract more people from the right demographics. I didn't realize that the GAP's prime demographic was 17-year-old girls, what with their new business-line and all, but then again in this economy it's only a matter of time before teenagers are back in the workplace, with Lewis Hine close behind.

Well, I promised you a catfight, so here it is:

"Sarah's spring campaign for Gap has only just started and she felt the announcement of her replacement in the same week that the new ads are appearing is a bit of a snub," one friend said.

"Joss is not only a teenager, she's also a virtual unknown. Had her replacement been a big star, perhaps Sarah wouldn't have minded so much."

Ok, not so big a catfight, but come on, SJP!

You can check some of the financial stuff behind the issue (I'm in an Econ. class, so sue me) here.

Target is the new Tiffany

I never really understood the idea of registering at stores when you get married. I always kind of thought it is was a little bizarre for a couple to tell people what to buy them instead of having faith in your friends and family's gift-choices (though my girlfriend just told me it's to avoid getting "like" thirty blenders, which I suppose is true). Anyway, apparently more and more people are registering at (shudder) Target and (vomit) Wal-Mart. That's the new America for you. From Reuters:

About a third of brides reported registering at specialty stores like Crate & Barrel and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., while another third registered at stores with a broad scope of discounted products, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target.

The remaining third registered at department and national chain stores including Neiman Marcus Group Inc., J.C. Penney Co. Inc. and Kohl's Corp..

"They cover such a wide variety of products," Peter Greene, general manager of NPD Houseworld said, referring to the popularity of discount stores such as Target as a place to register. "A lot of it has to do with what's available" in terms of the wide variety of products sold there.

Couples on average register for bridal shower and wedding gifts at 2.5 stores, but the registry captures only about 33 percent of wedding and 35 percent of shower gifts, according to the survey.

The average wedding guest spends about $59 for a shower gift and about $126 for a wedding gift, the NPD poll showed.

Back from Vacation. . .

Just to get into this shit. Instead of writing my own piece decrying the brainless, gutless, and unconstitutional act by Congress yesterday (which I don't really have time to do at the moment), I'll let Digby speak for me. I think he nails it pretty damn well.

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law . Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.

This is why we cannot trust the mainstream media. Most people get their news from television. And television is presenting this issue as a round the clock one dimensional soap opera pitting the "family", the congress and the church against this woman's husband and the judicial system that upheld Terry Schiavo's right and explicit request that she be allowed to die if extraordinary means were required to keep her alive. The ghoulish infotainment industry is making a killing by acceding once again to trumped up right wing sensationalism.

This issue gets to the essence of the culture war. Shall the state be allowed to interfere in the most delicate, complicated personal matters of life, death and health because a particular religious constituency holds that their belief system should override each individual's right to make these personal decisions for him or herself. And it isn't the allegedly statist/communist/socialist left that is agitating for the government to tell Americans how they must live and how they must die.

One of the things that we need to help America understand is that there is a big difference between the way the two parties perceive the role of government in its citizens personal lives. Democrats want the government to collect money from all its citizens in order to deliver services to the people. The Republicans want the government to collect money from working people in order to dictate individual citizen's personal decisions. You tell me which is the bigger intrusion into the average American's liberty?